6
- 12 May 2012
Japan

From
Tepco
stopped releasing plant parameters in English, posted by
Mochizuki, fukushima-diary.com, on May 13th, 2012 "Tepco
releases plant parameters data twice a day. It is one of the
most important source to know the latest state of the nuclear
plants. However, Tepco quit releasing the English version on
5/12/2012."
|
Pacific
North
America
Japan
2012-05-06 Does
radiation travel across the sea ? Posted by Mochizuki,
/fukushima-diary.com, on May 6th, 2012
Tracking
Japan’s Tsunami Debris
Using
historical weather patterns, NOAA’s Earth System Research
Laboratory developed this model of how debris will circulate
across the Pacific Ocean.
Although
a year has passed since Japan’s tsunami sucked tons of
wood, nets and other debris into the Pacific Ocean, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration continues to track the
rubble and urges others to do so to help focus cleanup efforts.
The
total amount of debris is unknown — the Japanese government
is fine-tuning its estimate of the amount that was generated
and sank initially, said Ruth Yender, NOAA’s Japan tsunami
marine debris coordinator. And immediately after the event,
satellite imagery showed large swaths of floating junk, which
dispersed a few months later.
So
NOAA is using other means, including higher resolution satellite
imagery and the public’s participation, to collect information
for planning and cleanup purposes.
NOAA
developed a model (above) and a map (below) to track where debris
likely will circulate in the Pacific Ocean. It launched a marine
debris tracker app, which people can use to log rubble they
find along coastlines and in waterways. They also can email
the agency with their finds.
Does
radiation travels across the sea?
Click
on map for a larger version. Courtesy of J. Churnside/NOAA’s
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.
It
doesn’t matter if the trash is from the tsunami or other
sources. “Debris is not a new thing. It washes ashore
everyday, and it can be a hazard to marine life,” Yender
said. Whales, sea lions and other creatures can ingest it or
become entangled, and it also can do damage to coral reefs and
boat propellers, she said.
So
by gauging any changes in volume and composition, NOAA and other
state, local and federal agencies can know where to ramp up
their cleanup efforts.
Since
nuclear reactors, including those at the Fukushima Dai-ichi
plant, were damaged in the earthquake, there was a concern of
radioactive contamination. But agencies such as the Environmental
Protection Agency and Federal Emergency Management Agency have
examined tests of nearby damaged vessels and other tsunami remnants,
and determined it was “very highly unlikely” the
spreading debris would be radioactive, Yender said.
<End>
[Note]
Tsunami hit before nuclear accidents, so Tsunami debris is actually
unlikely to be contaminated. However, the map suggests how contaminated
water travels around in Pacific ocean.
Source
2012-05-06 33mSv/y
measured at over 26 schools in Fukushima and it’s concealed,
Posted by Mochizuki on May 6th, 2012 · 4 Comments
Following
up this article..Koriyama
board of education stops decontamination of schools
Over
14 elementary schools, 7 junior high schools and 5 nursery schools
in Koriyama city of Fukushima measured higher than 3.8µSv/h
(33mSv/y) in January, which is beyond the yearly safety limit
of 20mSv/y. This measurement was ordered by the board of education
in Koriyama city but they concealed this fact until a citizen’s
organization requested for information disclosure, announced
on 5/6/2012.
According
to the disclosed information, Koriyama city board of education
ordered each school to measure radiation at 8 points in street
gutter, hedge and drain of rain water back in January.
In
the radiation measurement of April, 20.4µSv/h was measured
from a street gutter of a junior high school.
Source
Following
up this article..Koriyama board of education stops decontamination
of schools
Over
14 elementary schools, 7 junior high schools and 5 nursery schools
in Koriyama city of Fukushima measured higher than 3.8µSv/h
(33mSv/y) in January, which is beyond the yearly safety limit
of 20mSv/y. This measurement was ordered by the board of education
in Koriyama city but they concealed this fact until a citizen’s
organization requested for information disclosure, announced
on 5/6/2012.
According
to the disclosed information, Koriyama city board of education
ordered each school to measure radiation at 8 points in street
gutter, hedge and drain of rain water back in January.
In the radiation measurement of April, 20.4µSv/h was measured
from a street gutter of a junior high school.
2012-05-06 German
TV Interview on Fukushima: More and more people living in highly
contaminated places are dying of heart disease because of cesium
(VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-06 When
radioactive cesium enters body, 75% lodges in muscle tissue
including heart, ENENews.com
2012-05-06 Mayor:
“I’m losing my hair and have nosebleed everyday…
I asked for blood test at a hospital in Tokyo because I’m
exposed, but they refused it” (VIDEO), published:
May 6th, 2012 at 7:47 pm ET, By ENENews
On
April 25, YAMATANI
Eriko, Member of the House of Councillors (National Diet
of Japan) read an interview with Katsutaka Idogawa, mayor of
Futaba [Editor's Note: See Wikipedia article "Futaba
District, Fukushima"], translated
by Fukushima Diary
[...]
Japanese government submit SPEEDI data to US and concealed
it from Japanese people. Even now, SPEEDI data is not given
to Futaba town.
[...]
We were not even informed of venting.
[...]
I’m losing my hair and have nosebleed everyday. The
other day, I asked for blood test at a hospital in Tokyo because
I’m exposed but they refused it. We were even exposed
and there is even no treatment, or proper inspection. Medical
check up for Fukushima citizens are not detailed enough either.
2012-05-06 Official’s
Testimony: “Our town citizens reported they tried to have
exposure tests at several hospitals but they are all stopped
by Fukushima Medical University” (VIDEO),
ENENews.com
2012-05-07 The
Real Super Heroes, majiasblog.blogspot.com
I
was dragged to the Avengers movie with my boys.
I
kept thinking while watching the film that the REAL super heroes
are the workers at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant who are sacrificing
their lives to save Japan and the northern hemisphere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C03f_WEmiXY&feature=plcp
Many
of them may have been tricked into working at the plant.
Media
reports suggest they are not treated well.
Tragically,
we don't know their names.
We
don't have an opportunity to offer them our thanks.
We
don't celebrate their efforts, nor mourn their deaths.
There
is something very wrong here.
References
Hat
tip for video link: Wideawake
Phred
Dvorak “Japanese Nuclear Cleanup Workers Detail Lax Safety
Practices at Plant,” The Wall Street Journal (2011, June
14): A1, A12.
Ilya
Perlingieri “No Protection For Fukushima's 'Expendable'
Citizens Or Us,” Jeff Rense (2011, May 4):
http://www.rense.com/general94/noprot.htm
"Whereabouts
of 30 Nuclear Power Plant Subcontractors Unknown: Health Ministry"
Mainichi (2011, June 21): http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110621p2a00m0na005000c.html.
“TEPCO
Says It Has Lost Contact with 143 Nuclear Plant Workers,”
Japan Today (2011, August 10): http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/tepco-says-it-has-lost-contact-with-143-nuclear-plant-workers
2012-05-07 The
Guardian asks: How likely is a catastrophe at Fukushima’s
No. 4 fuel pool? Plant near fault as large as one that caused
M9.0 quake, ENENews.com
2012-05-07 Shallow
M4.8 hits Fukushima — 5km deep (MAPS), ENENews.com
2012-05-07 Japan
Physician: Radiation levels 40 times higher than reported by
Japan gov’t — 12 Megabequerels per meter and NOT
designated as evacuation zone (VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-07 Head
of Medical Clinic: Radiation already causing health problems
around Tokyo — Highly contaminated areas have led to physiological
damage (VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-07 Kyoto
Professor: 20,000 square kilometers would be evacuated if Japan
followed law on “illegal” radioactive waste —
20 times larger than no-go zone (VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-07 Japan
Nuclear Expert: There are known to be broken fuel rod assemblies
in Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 — Large amount of radioactive
material has fallen to bottom — “Many years”
to get fuel out (VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-07 stream
the bugs out & crack the tepcode @ fukushima dai-ichi livestream
(video) (YouTube) (8:17) Video-remastered and colorized
version of TEPCO webcam views with soundtrack. YouTube caption:
"syncro & dual layered video with my records from last
night and the uploads from fukulong:", ENENews.com [h/t
Monday, May 7, 2012, Watch
Nuchelchen's Video Cracking the Tepco Code, majiasblog.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HspBjqUbeZM&feature=youtu.be]
2012-05-07 Bellona:
Concerns loom ever larger at Fukushima as experts warn of No.
4 fuel pool’s unstable condition with increasing worry,
ENENews.com
2012-05-07 Kyodo:
More than 25 Koriyama schools with high radiation areas —
At least 19 nursery and elementary schools affected —
60km from Fukushima Daiichi, ENENews.com
2012-05-08 Report
Contains Numbers of Fuel Assemblies at Fukushima as of March
2010, majiasblog.blogspot.com
I'm
collecting some data about how many fuel assemblies were at
Fukushima
Tomorrow
(Wed) I'll post my calculations about the Cesium-137 contained
in those assemblies.
I
was pleased today to find a report detailing how many assemblies
were at the plant in 2010. This report may not be new, and I
know other people have discussed it, but it has some valuable
information that I can use for estimating how much radiation
is at various places in the plant.
The
report is titled Integrity Inspection of Dry Storage Casks and
Spent Fuels at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. 16 November
2010. Yumiko Kumano, Tokyo Electric Power Company
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/6-1_powerpoint.pdf
The
report states "Approximately 700 spent fuel assemblies
are generated every year" (p. 9)
The
assemblies are stored in spent fuel pools and also in dry casks.
Each reactor building has a spent fuel pool and there is also
a common spent fuel pool.
On
page 9 there is a nice table detailing the amount of fuel assemblies
in storage at the plant as of March 2010.
STORAGE
METHOD STORAGE AMOUNT CAPACITY
Spent
Fuel Pool at Each Reactor 3,450 assemblies in each pool 8,310
Dry
Cask 408 assemblies 408
Common
Spent Fuel Pool 6,291 6,840
____________________________________________________________________
Total
10,149 as of March 2010 15,558
There
is also a chart for Storage Amount (ton-U) as of March 2010
(page 4)
Fukushima
Daiichi had 1,760 (ton-U) as of March 2010
I
found two other sources of information for spent fuel stored
at Daiichi plant:
MacKenzie
of New Scientist reported in March 2011 that “the Fukushima
plant has around 1760 tonnes of fresh and used nuclear fuel
on site, and an unknown amount has been damaged. The Chernobyl
reactor had only 180 tonnes.”
Austrian
researchers have used a worldwide network of radiation detectors
– designed to spot clandestine nuclear bomb tests –
to show that iodine-131 is being released at daily levels 73
per cent of those seen after the 1986 disaster. The daily amount
of caesium-137 released from Fukushima Daiichi is around 60
per cent of the amount released from Chernobyl." (MacKenzie
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html
)
Eliot
Marshall and Sara Reardon on 17 March 2011. How Much Fuel Is
at Risk at Fukushima? Science Insider http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/how-much-fuel-is-at-risk-at-fukushima.html?rss=1
“The
most damaged Daiichi reactor, number 3, contains about 90 tons
of fuel, and the storage pool above reactor 4, which the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Gregory Jaczko reported yesterday
had lost its cooling water, contains 135 tons of spent fuel.
The amount of fuel lost in the core melt at Three Mile Island
in 1979 was about 30 tons; the Chernobyl reactors had about
180 tons when the accident occurred in 1986."
2012-05-09 Tokyo
bay becoming a hot spot, Posted by Mochizuki, fukushima-diary.com
on May 9th, 2012
Prof.
Yamazaki from Kinki university analyzed the cesium in sea ground
of Tokyo bay on 4/2/2012.
He
found out it increased since last August.
The
samples were taken at 3 locations in Tokyo bay, near Arakawa
river Tokyo and Urayasu Chiba. [More Here]
2012-05-09 Asia-Pacific
Journal: Surging suicide rate among Fukushima evacuees —
“Figures have been fabricated to save face… officials
press hard for cover-ups” -NGO leader, ENENews.com
2012-05-09 Top
talk show discusses Prof. Koide’s statements about feeding
Fukushima-contaminated food to supporters of nuclear power
(VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-09 Shocking
Report: Rumors of stressed-out Fukushima nuclear workers attacking
women, ENENews.com
2012-05-09 How
Much Radiation Is At Issue: Cesium 137 in Spent Fuel Pool 4,
majiasblog.blogspot.com
This
is part II from yesterday's posts covering the amount of radiation
at the Fukushima plant:
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/report-contains-numbers-of-fuel.html
In
this post I am summarizing remarks made by Professor Hiroaki
Koide at the May 4 Conference in New York City available at
the webpage Cinema Forum Fukushima. I will use the data presented
here for a third post.
Professor
Hiroaki Koide, Nuclear Reactor Specialist and Assistant Professor
at Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute also spoke at
the conference.[i] Prof. Koide discussed the amount of radiation
released in March of 2011 and discussed the status of the reactors
at the plant. He stated that the Japanese government report
submitted to the IAEA quantified the radiation released by the
explosions of March 2011 at 15,000 terabecquerels of cesium-137
alone. This figure did not include other radionuclides, nor
did it include cesium released of radionuclides into the ocean.
Yet, it amounted to 170 times the amount of cesium-137 released
by the Hiroshima explosion (Hiroshima was 89 terabecquerels
of cesium-137).
Prof. Koide addressed the status of reactor 4 separately. He
explained that the reactor core 4 contained 548 assemblies of
nuclear rods. Those assemblies were not in the reactor core
at the time of the earthquake but rather were in the reactor
4 spent fuel pool. There were therefore a total of 1331 fuel
assemblies in pool 4. These fuel assemblies contain five thousand
times the amount of cesium 137 released by the Hiroshima bomb.
Prof. Koide went on to explain that three of the other reactors
at the plant, reactors 1, 2, and 3, all had core meltdowns and
the current locations of the melted coriums are unknown. He
noted that significant releases of radiation contamination continue
into the ocean. Prof. Koide concluded that humanity as a whole
has never experienced this level of radiation contamination
and he stated “I have no idea what will happen but we
will be fighting this radiation on the order of tens, hundreds
of years”
2012-05-09 Post
3: Unanswered Questions and Some Extrapolations Regarding Radiation
at Fukushima, majiasblog.blogspot.com, Wednesday,
May 9, 2012
Post
3: Unanswered Questions and Some Extrapolations Regarding Radiation
at Fukushima
This
is the third post in 3:
1.
Post I: Report Contains Numbers of Fuel Assemblies at Fukushima
as of March 2010
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/report-contains-numbers-of-fuel.html
2.
Post II: How Much Radiation Is At Issue: Cesium 137 in Spent
Fuel Pool 4
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-much-radiation-is-at-issue-cesium.html
My
Analysis:
Strangely
missing from most public dialogue about the Fukushima Dai-ichi
plant are any specific discussions of (a) reactor 3; (b) the
common spent fuel pool, and (c) reactors 5 and 6. Also missing
from public discussion are (d) quantifications of other forms
of radionuclides that were released into the air and sea during
the explosion. Most importantly, perhaps, is (e) the absence
of any kind of discussion of the ongoing nature of the releases.
I'm going to address unit 3 and the common spent fuel pool here.
The
exact state of reactor 3 is unknown but the physical appearance
of the reactor is of utter destruction. Reactor 3 had the vigorous
explosion and commentators have suggested that there was either
a criticality in the reactor pressure vessel or in the spent
fuel pool. Reactor 3 alone contained mox fuel, which uses plutonium
in the fuel mix, rendering it more toxic than fuel based only
on uranium (Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/25/us-japan-quake-idUSTRE72A0SS20110325)
Using
the data from the previous two posts linked above I am going
to make some extrapolations about the cesium-137 radiation in
spent fuel pool #3 and the common spent fuel pool.
What
We Know About Cesium-137 in Fuel Pool 4
Professor
Koide claimed the following: 1331 assemblies = 5000 X as much
cesium-137 as released by Hiroshima (he said Hiroshima was 89
terabecquerels of cesium-137)
Cesium-137
in Common Spent Fuel Pool?
According
to the report linked in post 1 (http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/6-1_powerpoint.pdf),
the common spent fuel pool had 6,291 assemblies in March of
2010. Accordingly, it must have approximately 4.7 X as much
Cesium-137 as spent fuel pool #4.
Put
otherwise, the common spent fuel pool must have over 23,000X
as much cesium-137 as contained in the Hiroshima bomb. It must
have 23,000X 89 terabecquerels worth of cesium-137.(?)
[Caution:
these figures are really only general estimates and do not address
the relative depletion of radiation in the spent fuel pools
since they're based on Prof. Koide's estimation of the amount
of radiation in fuel pool 4, which contained new fuel. So, the
figures are useful, albeit only ballpark in nature.]
THERE
HAS BEEN LITTLE-TO-NO MENTION OF THE STATUS OF THE COMMON SPENT
FUEL POOL.
Now
let us look at Spent Fuel Pool #3.
According
to the report linked in post 1, each spent fuel pool at the
reactor buildings contained 3,450 fuel assemblies. Hence, we
can extrapolate that spent fuel pool #3 had 2.592X as much cesium
as spent fuel pool 4 (1331 assemblies).
So,
spent fuel pool #3 could possibly have had 12,960X as much cesium-137
as the Hiroshima bomb, or 1,153,440 terabecquerels of cesium-137.
(?)
[Caution
again--ballpark figures]
Ballpark
numbers for cesium-137 are huge for spent fuel pool 3 (and that
doesn't include the fuel in the reactor core).
There
is evidence unit 3 spent fuel pool was damaged or possibly even
destroyed:
First,
Visual pictures of the plant suggest spent fuel pool 3 is no
longer existent.
http://www.satimagingcorp.com/galleryimages/worldview-2-fukushima-daiichi-031711.jpg
Second,
Unit 3 had the biggest explosion of units 1-3. We've seen the
visual evidence in the video releases of the explosions.
Third,
the NRC tapes indicate significant damage to unit 3.
Asahi
Flyover: No spent fuel pool seen in Reactor No. 3 — SFP
‘must’ be in center of screen, however we can’t
see any of it (VIDEO) (http://enenews.com/developing-asahi-flyover-spent-fuel-pool-reactor-3-sfp-be-center-screen-video
;Asahi video availble here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1Vq5TzMvRa4)
NRC
minutes available here:
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12052A109.pdf
Fourth,
on March 15 and 16 2011, Tepco and Japanese authorities described
unit 3 as their priority:
Washington
Post 3/15: [excerpt] "At the Fukushima plant, workers were
focusing on the unit 3 reactor building, where a white plume
of smoke was spotted Wednesday morning, and on unit 4, where
fires flared up Tuesday and again on Wednesday morning... Wednesday
afternoon, the Japanese military dispatched two helicopters
to the Daiichi plant from Kasuminome Air Base in Sendai. A lead
chopper was sent to determine whether radiation levels were
low enough to continue with the operation. The second helicopter,
a Boeing CH-47, followed behind, a huge bucket of sea water
dangling beneath it. The CH-47 was slated to make several passes
to drop water onto unit 3. But the crew on the first copter
found radiation levels were too high to carry out the risky
mission." [end excerpt]
"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/latest-nuclear-plant-explosion-in-japan-raises-radiation-fears/2011/03/15/ABwTmha_story.html
"The
plant operator described No. 3 -- the only reactor at that uses
plutonium in its fuel mix -- as the "'priority.'"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110316/ts_nm/us_japan_quake
CONCLUSIONS
The
evidence suggests unit 3 was severely damaged. However, we do
not know with any certainty how damaged the pool was, nor the
reactor core.
I
plan on searching for more information about spent fuel pool
3 in my archives.
Finding
any reports of the common spent fuel pools will be challenging.
However,
the information we have about what was actually stored at the
plant (!!!!) and the sheer volume of radionuclides in the fuel
rods together make one wonder why unit 3 was dropped from the
news when it was the priority in March 2011?
Also,
why all the recent attention now to unit 4 and nothing on the
other units despite the massive steam/smoke releases over the
last few months, documented in the Tepco and JNN webcams trained
on the plant?
BACKGROUND
Robert
Alvarez wrote to author of website Akio Matsumura:
–Based
on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent
fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly
all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies
(~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity.
–About
134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the
amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated
by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP).
The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi
site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated
by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear
weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants
(~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel). (cited at Akio
Matsumura
http://akiomatsumura.com/2012/04/682.html)
NukeProfessional
provides the following 2 analyses of uranium and plutonium emitted
from the plant
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphere.html
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/03/plutonium-admission-by-epa.html
Jim
Stone calculates the radiation from the uranium and plutonium
in unit 3. I am not familiar with him as a source, but the numbers
seem reliable when considered in relation to the cesium-137
numbers http://www.degaray.com/misc/147-RealTime-JimStoneFreelance.html
2012-05-09 Alpha
radiation detected near Japan’s west coast in Niigata,
Yamagata — Local official suspects levels too high to
be from Fukushima Daiichi (VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-09 Krypton-85
doubles inside Reactor No. 2 — At highest level since
year began, ENENews.com
2012-05-10 Minamisoma
is 122 times more contaminated than mandatory evacuation zone
in Belarus, fukushima-diary.com, Posted by Mochizuki
on May 10th, 2012
Mr.
Oyama, a Minamisoma city councilor measured cesium 134 / 137
of the soil of Minamisoma city.
Mr.
Oyama, a Minamisoma city councilor measured cesium 134 / 137
of the soil of Minamisoma city.
[Japanese
script]
The
analysis was done by a laboratory of Minamisoma local government.
[Japanese
script]
The
result is like this graph below.
[Japanese
script]
The
most left “bar” is the doubled limit of mandatory
evacuation zone in Belarus. (2*1,480,000Bq/m2). It was needed
for the 2 reasons.
[Japanese
script] (148[Japanese script]Bq/m2) [Japanese script]
1.
Otherwise it is too small to recognize on this graph.
[[Japanese
script]
2.
Because the limit of 1,480,000Bq/m2 is only cesium137. By doubling
the figure, it gets close to the total of cesium 137 and 134.
[script]
On
4/16/2012, Japanese government lifted hazard area of this zone.
[script]
2012-05-10 Major
Japan Weekly: Industry insiders say Fukushima Daini “damaged
badly”, ENENews.com
2012-05-10 Tepco:
Reactor No. 3 has “doors that should not be disclosed
for the issue of nuclear material protection”
(VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-10 500,000
people to have been evacuated around Fukushima after March 11?
Official suggested 50km evacuation zone -Asahi,
ENENews.com
2012-05-10 Head
of Tokyo-area Medical Clinic: “Risk from internal exposure
is 200-600 times greater than risk from external exposure”
(VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-10 SOS
from Local Official: I can’t take it any more! “Black
dust” over 5.5 million Bq/kg — They’re going
to do what? Spring athletic meets? Swimming pool opening?,
ENENews.com
2012-05-10 Fukushima
woman poured gasoline over body and set self on fire —
Family blames Tepco, ENENews.com
2012-05-10 Researcher:
Japan accepting 20 millisieverts of radiation as safe “could
lead to a public health disaster”, ENENews.com
2012-05-10 How
they used to stock 100Bq/kg of radioactive waste
posted by Mochizuki, fukushima-diary.com, on May 10th, 2012
Before
311, radioactive waste to contain over 100 Bq/kg of cesium was
stocked like this on the picture.
Now
100Bq/kg is the safety limit of food.
2012-05-10 KPFK
airs 15-minute segment on Spent Fuel Pool No. 4: “The
scariest part? It’s being covered by virtually nobody
in the mainstream corporate media” (AUDIO),
ENENews.com
2012-05-11 No.
4 fuel pool will swing like upside down pendulum during quake
— Suspended 100 feet in air (VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-11
Former
Ambassador: No. 4 reactor a top national security issue for
entire world — Could start “the ultimate catastrophe”,
ENENews.com
2012-05-11
Tepco
on risk at Unit No. 4: Spent Fuel Pool can withstand up to a
lower-6 intensity quake without collapsing, ENENews.com
2012-05-11
Japan
Nuclear Expert: Humanity as a whole has literally never experienced
something like Fukushima — “We will be fighting
this radiation on the order of tens or hundreds of years”
(VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-11
Reactor
No. 3 at highest temperature of year — Now over 60ºC,
ENENews.com
2012-05-11 Fukushima
Daiichi: It May Be too Late Unless the Military Steps in
by Akio Matsumura, May 11, 2012
The
highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies at the Fukushima-Daiichi
power plants present a clear threat to the people of Japan and
the world. Reactor 4 and the nearby common spent fuel pool contain
over 11,000 highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies, many of
which are exposed to the open air. The cesium-137, the radioactive
component contained in these assemblies, present at the site
is 85 times larger than the amount released during the Chernobyl
accident. Another magnitude 7.0 earthquake would jar them from
their pool or stop the cooling water, which would lead to a
nuclear fire and meltdown. The nuclear disaster that would result
is beyond anything science has ever seen. Calling it a global
catastrophe is no exaggeration.
If
political leaders understand the situation and the potential
catastrophe, I find it difficult to understand why they remain
silent.
The
following leaves little to question:
Many
scientists believe that it will be impossible to remove the
1,535 fuel assemblies in the pool of Reactor 4 within two or
three years.
Japanese
scientists give a greater than 90 percent probability that an
earthquake of at least 7.0 magnitude will occur in the next
three years in the close vicinity of Fukushia-Daiichi.
The
crippled building of Reactor 4 will not stand through another
strong earthquake.
Japan
and the TEPCO do not have adequate nuclear technology and experience
to handle a disaster of such proportions alone.
Senator
Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote a letter to Japan’s Ambassador
to the United States, Mr. Ichiro Fujisaki, on April 16, 2012,
discussing his fact-finding trip to the Fukushima Daiichi site.
Senator
Wyden, senior member of the United States Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, mentioned that “the scope of damage
to the plants and to the surrounding area was far beyond what
[he] expected and the scope of the challenge to the utility
owner, the government of Japan, and to the people of the region
are daunting.” He also mentioned that “TEPCO’s
December 21, 2011 remediation roadmap proposes to take up to
ten years to complete spent fuel removal from all of the pools
on the site. Given the compromised nature of these structures
due to the events of March 11, their schedule carries extraordinary
and continuing risk if further severe seismic events were to
occur.”
Many
of us echo Senator Wyden’s concerns...[more here]
2012-05-12
“Serious
Implications”: Tokyo radiation an issue with IOC officials
— Consultant said concerns were growing in Europe about
possible contamination of Tokyo, ENENews.com
2012-05-12 Diplomat:
Japan public “beginning to slow burn” and “becoming
very indignant” — Gov’t “very fearful
of opening any reactors” (VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-12 Nuclear
Expert: Tokyo radiation data “terrifying” after
Fukushima meltdowns — US knew city was in jeopardy since
beginning and didn’t warn people (VIDEO),
ENENews.com
2012-05-12 The
highest atmospheric dose is in Tochigi (Apart from Fukushima),
Posted by Mochizuki, fukushima-diary.com, on May 12th, 2012
2012-05-12 [for this day] Tepco
stopped releasing plant parameters in English,
posted by Mochizuki, fukushima-diary.com, on May 13th, 2012
Tepco
releases plant parameters data twice a day.
It
is one of the most important source to know the latest state
of the nuclear plants.
However,
Tepco quit releasing the English version on 5/12/2012.
2012-05-12 Japanese
bleeding from eyes posted by Mochizuki, fukushima-diary.com,
on May 12th, 2012
Multiple
Japanese people reported sudden bleeding from the eyes at once.
<Translate>
Bleeding
from eyes. didn’t do anything, why ?! (From Ishinomaki
city Miyagi = Disaster area.)
<End>
<Translate>
My
eye started bleeding all of a sudden yesterday. It was my first
time to get on an ambulance. They say the blood vessel of eyelid
was cut. thought I was going to lose my eye sight. so scary.
The reason is not known.(Tokyo)
<End>
2012-05-12 240,000
Bq/Kg at 5km from Imperial Palace, posted by Mochizuki,
fukushima-diary.com, on May 15th, 2012
The
extremely radioactive black substance was found at 4km from
the center of Tokyo.
In
10 minutes walk from Hirai station of JR Sobu line, where is
about 4 km from Tokyo station, 5 km from Imperial Palace
black
substance was found in several places near the play ground of
a public estates.
A
local citizen’s group found this and had it analyzed by
Prof. Yamauchi from Kobe university. He measured 243,000 Bq/Kg
of cesium and the surface dose was 2µSv/h.
Mr.
Ishikawa, the chairman of citizen’s group states, the
black substance is now everywhere in Tokyo, and it moves by
wind or rain.
Roughly
estimating, the soil around the black substance is contaminated
as 15,600,000 Bq/m2 (cesium134/137).
In
Belarus, the place where is more contaminated than 1,480,000Bq/Kg
(cesium137) was defined as mandatory evacuation area.
To
double the Belarus standard to make it close to the total of
cesium 134 and 137, it becomes 2,960,000Bq/m2.
The
graph to compare Tokyo to the mandatory evacuation area in Tokyo
is below, which shows the contamination situation around Hirai
Station is worse than no-man’s zone of Belarus by 527%.
|
North
America
2012-05-06 Caldicott:
Fukushima radiation will be reaching you quite soon on US West
Coast — I don’t think I’d be surfing (VIDEO),
ENENews.com
2012-05-07 Rain
Fallout Measured 6x Greater Than Background Radiation,
posted May 7, 2012
We took a swipe off of a piece of sheet metal at 1:15 pm on
5/7/12; the light rain had stopped approximately 1 hour prior
to the sample being taken. The sample returned a reading of
six times greater than background radiation
2012-05-07 TV:
“Could it really happen?” State of Washington testing
CLAMS for Fukushima radiation — Salmon and steelhead also
— Will continue “until public concern abates”
(VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-08 Columbia
Medical Professor: Inhaling just one radioactive hot particle
can cause cancer (VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-08 FBI
Whistleblower Releases Unauthorized Memoir — “They
have individuals on their payroll on almost every nuclear facility
in the United States” (VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-09 U.S.
Senator
sounds alarm about 'precarious' Fukushima situation, warns of
imminent release of radiation by Mike Adams, the
Health Ranger, Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews)
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden is, as far as Senators go, an honorable
guy. I don't agree with all his politics, but I actually used
to live in his district in Oregon when he was a congressman
(1981 - 1996), and I remember him standing out as someone who
genuinely seemed to care about the People.
To
my knowledge, Sen. Wyden is the only U.S. Senator who has actually
visited the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility and warned
the U.S. public about what he saw. And what did he see? A wrecked,
half-collapsed building site littered with massive collections
of nuclear fuel rods that now threaten the entire Northern hemisphere
with a radiation apocalypse.
(http://www.naturalnews.com/035789_Fukushima_Cesium-137_Plume-Gate.htm...)
When
Wyden returned to the USA following the visit, he immediately
issued an urgent warning, now reprinted on his website. In the
watered-down language of political correctness, the warning
is still quite strong. As his website says: (http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/after-tour-of-fukushi...)
Wyden's
principal concern is the relocation of spent fuel rods currently
being stored in unsound structures immediately adjacent to the
ocean. He strongly urged the Ambassador to accept international
help to prevent dangerous nuclear material from being released
into the environment.
He
then went on to say, in his own words: (emphasis added)
"The
scope of damage to the plants and to the surrounding area was
far beyond what I expected and the scope of the challenges to
the utility owner, the government of Japan, and to the people
of the region are daunting. The precarious status
of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear units and the risk presented
by the enormous inventory of radioactive materials and
spent fuel in the event of further earthquake threats should
be of concern to all and a focus of greater international support
and assistance."
His
website goes on to say something that should stun anyone who
understands the threat of radioactive contamination of the environment:
"Wyden
found that the facilities designed to house spent nuclear fuel
and the reactors themselves were still in a state of disrepair
and located in areas that would make them susceptible to
further damage from future seismic events. The reactor buildings
still contain large amounts of spent fuel -- making them a huge
safety risk and the only protection from a future tsunami, Wyden
observed, is a small, makeshift sea wall erected out of bags
of rock."
Did
you catch that last part? The only protection from a tsunami
is a "makeshift sea wall erected out of bags or rock."
And
to think, the fate of the world now depends on us all just "lucking
out" and crossing our fingers in the hope that no earthquake
or tsunami takes place before they clean up the Fukushima facility
mess.
Which
brings up the question: What exactly is being done to clean
up the Fukushima facility mess?
In
a word, nothing.
Governments
play pretend
Virtually
nothing is happening. All the governments involved (Japan and
USA, primarily) are playing a ridiculously stupid game of pretending
there is no problem. The Japanese government, for its part,
has decided that instead of admitted to a radiation problem,
it's easier to just tell Japanese citizens they have a mental
disorder if they're concerned about radiation (http://www.prisonplanet.com/fear-of-radiation-treated-as-psychiatric-...).
The
U.S. government plays a similar mind game, raising the allowable
levels of radiation exposure by thousands of times and then
declaring Fukushima fallout to be suddenly safe! (http://www.naturalnews.com/031963_radiation_exposure.html)
Governments,
in other words, are in denial mode even while Fukushima
smolders and hurls us all toward irreversible global disaster.
If
Fukushima were a "terrorist," the U.S. government would stop
at nothing to defeat it
What's
really telling in all this is that if a "terrorist" organization
were threatening the USA with the same amount of nuclear material
held at Fukushima, the U.S. would take immediate and decisive
action to eliminate that threat. For the record, the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear facility has enough radioactive material to
make thousands of terrorist "dirty bombs".
All
that radioactive material now threatens America, but because
it is subjected to random "natural" causes (earthquakes, tsunamis,
etc.) instead of "terrorist" causes, the U.S. government has
stupidly chosen to ignore it. It's not politically advantageous
to talk about Fukushima, you see, because it doesn't fit into
the false theatrical narrative of terrorists threatening America.
This
leaves us all in a frustratingly idiotic catch-22, where governments
refuse to address a problem that threatens the world unless
and until the problem explodes in their faces, at which point
it is too late to address it.
All
this leads to the obvious solution for resolving the Fukushima
conundrum. The way to get governments to address Fukushima is
to allow the facility to be taken over by terrorists!
Only then will the U.S. government consider the threat to be
real, since the entire government only sees things through "terrorist
glasses."
The
science of denial
Of
course, the real source of all this terror is the arrogance
of modern science itself, which now threatens the very survival
of the human race. As I recently wrote here on NaturalNews,
the human race is being "suicided" in the name of science. (http://www.naturalnews.com/035790_scientific_suicide_humans.html)
Science
has become a far greater threat than terrorism could ever imagine,
because in the name of "science," we have been placed in the
crosshairs of not just a nuclear apocalypse, but also the disastrous
effects of self-replicating genetic pollution via GMOs.
"Science"
has handed us antibiotic-resistant superbugs, the global pollution
of crops and soils with synthetic pesticides, the death of the
honey bees, and the mass poisoning of children with mercury
through dentistry and vaccines (among other crimes). "Science"
told us that nuclear power was safe ... yet here we are in 2012,
on the verge of an event that could kill a quarter of the human
population on the planet, and all the scientists can do is deny
any problem exists at all.
Denial
may be an effective psychological tactic in politics and poker,
but unfortunately for the rest of us it does not alter the laws
of physics. "Denial" does not change the 30-year half life of
Cesium-137, a radioactive isotope that mimics the mineral potassium
and thus is easily absorbed into food crops, poisoning the entire
food supply.
Denial
is not a tactic of genuine leaders; it is a last-ditch desperate
ploy of the weak-minded.
We
are living in the land of denial, led by elected denialists
who are voted into office by working-class denialists. Denial
has become our modus operandi, our fabric of fairytales.
It has allowed our civilization to ride high on a global debt
pyramid and it will be the harbinger of our ultimate destruction
at the hands of "scientists" who promised us life but delivered
us unto death.
2012-05-09 Joe
Rogan on No. 4 Fuel Pool at Fukushima: Nuclear power is like
summoning a demon — It’s ridiculous (VIDEO),
ENENews.com
2012-05-09 Kaltofen
shows effect of plutonium on lung tissue: See single particle
cause fibrotic nodule in lung — Eases fears on West Coast
(VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-10 Interesting
Discussion of Spent Fuel Pool 3 Explosions, majiasblog.blogspot.com
The
Message of Fukushima Unit Three
TerraHertz
20120501
http://everist.org/archives/Fukushima/20120430_Message_of_Fuku3.htm
Consider
reading in conjunction with my post from yesterday
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/post-3-unanswered-questions-and-some.html
2012-05-10 Latest
Potrblog Video, majiasblog.blogspot.com
Latest
Potrblog Video: Live in San Francisco? You Inhaled 75 MILLION
Plutonium Atoms In Just 4 days http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B09HdHTwhUI&feature=youtu.be
2012-05-10 On
Why 20 Milliseiverts a Year is Not "Safe," Nor 6 Millisieverts,
majiasblog.blogspot.com
Schmidt
CW 2012. CT Scans: Balancing Health Risks and Medical Benefits.
Environ Health Perspect 120:a118-a121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.120-a118
[excerpts]
"CT scanners emit X rays. Different tissue types absorb
X rays in varying amounts, and the resulting contrasts provide
detailed images of anatomy and disease. Absorbed radiation can
break chemical bonds in tissues, liberating charged ions (hence
the term “ionizing radiation”) that can damage DNA
and produce cancer should cells be unable to repair themselves.
Nonionizing radiation—lower-energy radiofrequency waves
such as those emitted by microwave ovens and cell phones—doesn’t
break chemical bonds....
...The
dominant risk assessment model appears in a 2006 report from
the National Research Council’s Biological Effects of
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) subcommittee.6 The BEIR VII model
postulates there is no safe level of ionizing radiation exposure;
carcinogenic effects are assumed to follow a linear dose response,
meaning even the smallest exposure carries some level of cancer
risk. The BEIR VII model generates so-called lifetime attributable
risk (LAR) factors, which estimate the likelihood of cancer
in hypothetical individuals as a function of dose. Multiplying
the LAR by the number of people exposed to a given dose yields
an estimate of expected cancers from that exposure in the population....
The
AAPM’s position statement asserts that cancer risks are
negligible at effective doses below 50 millisieverts (mSv) for
single CT exposures and below 100 mSv for multiple exposures
over short durations. But a 2003 paper coauthored by David Brenner,
director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia
University School of Public Health, claims that the atom-bomb
survivor data work well for low-dose extrapolation because they’re
drawn from large cohorts with well-defined exposures and complete
followup.9 And those data, Brenner says, show a statistically
significant trend of increasing cancer risk with increasing
organ dose between 5 and 100 mSv. Smith-Bindman echoes his conclusions,
arguing that cancer risks are established even at effective
doses of 10 mSv...
Brenner
DJ, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing
radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 100(24):13761–13766. 2003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.223559210?0
2012-05-10 Getting
to Know Cesium-137, Thursday, May 10, 2012
5000
atomic bombs worth of cesium-137 in spent fuel pool 4
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-much-radiation-is-at-issue-cesium.html
Perhaps
up to 12,000 atomic bombs worth of cesium-137 in spent fuel
pool 3 (the one that probably exploded). Even more in the common
spent fuel pool.
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/post-3-unanswered-questions-and-some.html
How
toxic is cesium-137?
Caesium.
Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium#Health_and_safety_hazards
[excerpted]
"Experiments with dogs showed that a single dose of 3.8
millicuries (140 MBq, 4.1 µg of caesium-137) per kilogram
is lethal within three weeks;[105] smaller amounts may cause
infertility and cancer.[106] The International Atomic Energy
Agency and other sources have warned that radioactive materials,
such as caesium-137, could be used in radiological dispersion
devices, or "dirty bombs".[107 ]
Sources
105:
Redman, H. C.; McClellan, R. O.; Jones, R. K.; Boecker, B. B.;
Chiffelle, T. L.; Pickrell, J. A.; Rypka, E. W. (1972). "Toxicity
of 137-CsCl in the Beagle. Early Biological Effects". Radiation
Research 50 (3): 629–648. doi:10.2307/3573559. JSTOR 3573559.
PMID 5030090.
106:
"Chinese 'find' radioactive ball". BBC News. 2009-03-27.
Retrieved 2010-01-25.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7967285.stm
107:
Charbonneau, Louis (2003-03-12). "IAEA director warns of
"dirty bomb" risk". Washington Post (Reuters):
p. A15. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
MAJIA
HERE: Even cesium-133, which is not regarded as toxic, has been
shown to be toxic for people if too much is ingested. Furthermore,
it is toxic to plants.
"Cesium-Induced
Torsades de Pointes" N Engl J Med 2002; 346:383-384January
31, 2002
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200201313460523
Cesium
toxicity for plants:
"Cesium
toxicity in Arabidopsis." by Corrina R Hampton, Helen C
Bowen, Martin R Broadley, John P Hammond, Andrew Mead, Katharine
A Payne, Jeremy Pritchard, Philip J White Plant Physiology (2004)
Volume: 136, Issue: 3, Publisher: American Society of Plant
Biologists, Pages: 3824-3837 DOI: 10.1104/pp.104.046672 PubMed:
15489280
http://www.mendeley.com/research/cesium-toxicity-in-arabidopsis/
2012-05-11 Cost
Effective Fallout Friendly Radioactive Gardening (YouTube),
May 11, 2012
In this video we show our cost effective, radioactive risk mitigating,
greenhouse gardening approach for dealing with radioactive fallout
from Fukushima. The portable greenhouse shown in the video,
and the container gardening book mentioned, are available via
the "Risk Mitigation" Amazon widget on the right side
of the screen. Clickable links are also embedded in this blogpost,
below the video.
2012-05-11 Chief
Engineer: I’m telling my friends on West Coast of US to
watch Unit No. 4 like a hawk — Wake up everyday and make
sure it’s standing… have a plan to move somewhere
(VIDEO), ENENews.com
2012-05-11 Asahi:
Plan devised in US for expert committee to examine ways to resolve
Fukushima ‘problems’ — Shows many feel Tepco
and Japan gov’t can’t be depended upon,
ENENews.com
2012-05-11 On
Internal Emitters, majiasblog.blogspot.com
Majia
here: I have been considering taking my family to the southern
hemisphere for summer vacation to escape the radiation. However,
I realize now that strategy is not going to be effective.
Why?
As I see it, the main problem in the US is not from our exposure
to external gamma radiation from Fukushima. Rather, the problem
is the bio-accumulation of radiation fallout in our food chain.
At
the May 4 conference on Fukushima held in New York City Dr.
Junro FUSE, Internist and head of Kosugi Medical Clinic near
Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese with English interpretation) asserted:
“The
European Commission [Committee] on Radiation Risk has stated
that they believe the risk from internal exposure is between
200 and 600 times greater than the risk from external exposure.”
Footage of the NYC Press Conference May 4th 2012 Cinema Forum
Fukushima
http://cinemaforumfukushima.org/2012/05/06/archive-footage-of-the-nyc-press-conference-may-4th-2012/
(hat tip Enenews http://enenews.com/head-of-tokyo-area-medical-clinic-risk-from-internal-exposure-is-200-600-times-greater-than-risk-from-external-exposure-video)
MAJIA
HERE: There are relatively few studies on the risks from internal
exposure, as compared to external exposure. In 2004, a committee
was set up to look at the available research on the subject.
Findings
were published in a report:
Committee
Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE) Report
of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters
(CERRIE) National Radiological Protection Board; Chilton, UK:
2004. Available: http://www.cerrie.org/pdfs/cerrie_report_e-book.pdf
Page
29 Conclusions
To
the extent that ionising radiations from both internal emitters
and external sources generate similar physical and chemical
interactions in living matter, there are no fundamental differences
between the two sources of radiation that suggest that their
effects cannot be combined for radiological protection purposes.
However, short-range charged particle emissions, both electron
(eg low energy beta particles) and alpha particles, are important
contributors to internal but not external radiation exposures.
The potential heterogeneity of energy deposition in tissues
resulting from these internal emitters contrasts with the relatively
uniform irradiation of tissues from most external sources and
defines the central difference between these two sources of
radiation exposure. The Committee agreed that a methodology
for combining radiation effects from both types of source should,
in principle, be achievable. However, the Committee was more
divided on the adequacy of methods used to take account of such
heterogeneity, and these matters have been a central issue addressed
by the Committee….
The
chemical properties of an element determine its distribution
and retention in body tissues and cells and hence determine
the extent to which it may be located in a way that short-range
emissions may have an accentuated effect (ie in terms of damage
caused to cellular targets for the induction of cancer and genetic
effects). Biokinetic and dosimetric models are used to determine
this relationship between the distribution of radionuclides
and target cells. In some cases, simple models suffice because
the element and its radioisotopes are known to be uniformly
distributed in body tissues and the pattern of energy deposition
is similar to that resulting from external irradiation. In other
cases, complex models are required to account for heterogeneous
energy distribution within tissues, requiring knowledge of the
location of the radionuclide at different times after intake
and the location of target cells. Data available for model development
are of variable quality – in some cases, particularly
for some of the more important radionuclides, good information
is available, including human data, but in other cases reliance
is placed on sparse animal data. In many cases, there is little
information on variability between individuals and within human
populations. The Committee concluded that in general the combination
of biokinetic and dosimetric models gave rise to estimates of
central values with widely variable uncertainty ranges. The
Committee was more divided on the likely span of uncertainties
for specific radionuclides and situations of exposure, but there
was agreement that in some cases uncertainties could extend
over at least an order of magnitude.
68
The location of radionuclides within tissues is particularly
important for alpha particles that typically have a range of
a few tens of µm (traversing a few cells). It is also
important for low energy electrons, such as the beta particle
emissions from tritium with a range of <10 µm, and
Auger electrons. For these radionuclides, sub-cellular location
can be important, as location within the cell nucleus can increase
carcinogenic potential while within cytoplasm it can decrease
risk. On the basis of substantial experimental data, it is recognised
that these radiation types can cause greater damage per unit
energy deposition, because of the density of their ionisations
in small tissue volumes, than sparsely ionising radiations such
as gamma rays and X-rays, and higher energy electrons. The understanding
of these differences, termed relative biological effectiveness
(RBE), in terms of three-dimensional track structure, and consequent
interactions with DNA and other molecules, is a key goal of
microdosimetry. The Committee was generally in agreement that
this field of research is not yet far enough advanced for microdosimetric
techniques to present viable alternatives to current risk-related
radiation dosimetry. However, there was agreement that advances
in microdosimetry were likely to provide insights into the reliability
of dose estimates and may ultimately provide complementary approaches.
The desirability of further research was emphasized
MAJIA
HERE: Essentially, the committee found that there were heterogeneities
across internal and external exposure because of the special
risks posed by ingestion of alpha particles. The current risk
model, the ICRP method, fails to adequately account for this
heterogeneity; however, the committee concluded that the risk
model has heuristic value (especially given the lack of alternatives)
in real-world radiological risk assessment.
Another
review of the ICRP model comes to the same conclusion.
Harrison,
J., & Day, P. (2008). Radiation doses and risks from internal
emitters. Journal of Radiological Protection, 28, 137-159.
Harrison
and Day explain here the limitations of the ICRP methodology
for risk estimates, wr and effective dose:
“Risk
estimates for radiation-induced cancers are largely derived
from studies of the effects of external radiation, the principal
source of information being long-term studies of those who survived
the immediate effects of were the atomic weapons’ explosions
at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in 1945 (the so-called A-bomb survivors).
Thus, the risk of developing or dying from each observed type
of cancer has been related to the estimated external radiation
dose received at the time of the explosion, and for a short
time thereafter from gamma radiation from environmentally deposited
radionuclides. Doses from inhaled or ingested radionuclides
were not assessed…. (p. 145)
“A
central concern of CERRIE (2004) was whether the risk factors
derived from studies of the A-bomb survivors can be applied
generally. These risk factors, which applied to short, homogeneous,
high external doses of gamma radiation at a high dose rate,
are applied in all situations, including those at the opposite
extreme in all respects: namely heterogeneous, low dose exposure
to charged particles at low dose rates over protracted periods.
Although CERRIE concluded that these risks factors were the
best available, the Committee expressed considerable reservations
and considered that the application of these factors constituted
an important source of uncertainty in dose and risk estimates.”
(146)
MAJIA
HERE: The backstory on CERRIE is interesting.
I
found this account in the European Committee on Radiation Risk’s
2010 Recommendations of the ECRR The Health Effects of Exposure
to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation Regulators' Edition (http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf):
“The
Committee on Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters CERRIE was
set up by the UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher in 2001
along just these lines. Its remit was to discuss the evidence
for the failure of the ICRP model for internal emitters and
present both evidence which supported and opposed such a belief.
In the event, this process failed when the Minister was removed
in 2003 before the final report was published and a new Environment
Minister, Elliot Morley, was appointed by Tony Blair. Morley
shut down the Committee before it could carry out the key research
which had been agreed to decide the issue and legal threats
were used to prevent the oppositional report being included
(see endnote Morley 2010). The minority oppositional report
(which was excluded by the legal treats) was separately published
in 2004 (CERRIE 2004b). (page 14 http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf)
MAJIA
HERE: The European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) expressed
concerns about the decision of the ICRP committee to omit CERRIE’s
concerns about the uncertainty and heterogeneity of internal
effects from its 2007 report:
“But
ICRP did nothing to change any of the dose coefficients for
isotopes that caused such exposures or to apply such empirical
and pragmatic procedures. and the embarrassing paragraph above
was quietly dropped from the final ICRP 2007 report.
This
brief review of the 2007 ICRP report demonstrates that there
has essentially been no change in the model from that which
was published in 1990, and that new evidence and arguments which
scientifically falsify that model have been totally ignored.
The ICRP continues to support the same risk factors for exposures
to ionizing radiation and its model is still the basis for limits
to releases to the environment. The ICRP 2007 model does not
discuss the evidence: it is selective and partial and clearly
does not conform to the philosophical requirements of science
outlined in this chapter. As the Lesvos Declaration in the appendix
demands, it must now be abandoned (page 16 http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf)
MAJIA
HERE: The ECRR report claims that the 2007 ICRP report fails
to update its models of internal exposure appropriately and
therefore is no different from the 1990 ICRP report. The ECRR
report claims its model’s superiority in calculating epidemiological
effects of internal emitters. Here is an excerpt illustrating
comparing ICRP estimates with ECRP estimates:
“Table
10.5 UNSCEAR 1993 calculations of fallout average committed
effective doses in person Sv to world populations. Doses were
calculated using ICRP models and would be much larger using
the ECRR model where internal doses carry various weightings….”
(page 116)
Cancer
risk total 29,000,000 [UNSCEAR 1993 Table 11] (page 116)
“Table
10.6 (from UNSCEAR 1993) shows committed effective doses to
northern temperate latitudes (40-50 deg. N) from each of the
main isotopes involved. For comparison the table also shows
the total doses calculated using the proposed model of ECRR,
which recognises excess risk from internal emitters. Use of
the ECRR adjustment for internal risk using the ratios of external
to internal isotopes given in Table 10.6 would increase the
cancer yield from the 1990 ICRP value given above to more than
60,000,000 persons. The greater part of this yield would be
in the 50 years following the exposure, and these cancer increases
predicted are, of course, only too visible” (page 117
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf)
MAJIA
HERE: In this excerpt Chris Busby explains the basic difference
beween the ICRP and ECRR models:
“The
radiation risk model of the European Committee on Radiation
Risk is described in ECRR2010. It differs from the model currently
employed by radiation protection agencies which are based on
the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection ICRP. The latter (ICRP) model deals with radiation
exposure from all sources in the same way, as if it were external
to the body, and generally averages the dose to the body as
if it were uniform across tissues more massive than 1 kilogram.
The ICRP model then takes this dose and multiplies it by a risk
factor for cancer linearly based on the cancer yield at high
acute doses of the Japanese survivor populations of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki who have been studied since 1952. This method cannot
apply to internal doses from radioactive substances, called
radionuclides, which have been inhaled or ingested in food or
water”
(Busby
The health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe Initial analysis
from risk model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk
ECRR http://www.scribd.com/doc/52015430/fukuhealthrept)
MAJIA
HERE: Here is one Example of Why the ICRP and EPA Models for
Radiation Risk Understate Risks Significantly
EPA:
Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/federal/402-r-99-001.pdf
"For
both internal and external exposure, a risk coefficient for
a given radionuclide is based on the assumption that this is
the only radionuclide present in the environmental medium. That
is, doses due to decay chain members produced in the environment
prior to the intake of, or external exposure to, the radionuclides
are not considered” (p. 3)
MAJIA
HERE: Now let us look at some other evidence of the effects
of internal radiation:
Paul Langley sites an interesting research study on the ”The
Metabolism of the Fission Products, Hamilton 1942 on. http://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/the-metabolism-of-the-fission-products-hamilton-1942-on/
Langley
writes: The individual and regular reports made by Hamilton
to the Manhattan Project from 1942 are listed at the DOE Opennet
online archive. The following is a post war paper dealing with
what was learnt.
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/49/3/325
The
Metabolism of the Fission Products and the Heaviest Elements
Jos.
G. Hamilton, M.D. + Author Affiliations Division of Medical
Physics (Berkeley), Divisions of Medicine and Radiology (San
Francisco) University of California
This
document is based on work performed under Contract No. W-7405-eng-48-A
for the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission.
It
is a brief version of material to be published in the Plutonium
Project Record of the Manhattan Project Technical Series. Presented
at the Thirty-second Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society
of North America, Chicago, Ill., Dec. 1–6, 1946.
Excerpt
Introduction
and Methods During the early phases of the development of the
Plutonium Project, it became apparent that one of the most serious
problems to be encountered was the protection of personnel working
in this field against the immense quantities of radiation and
radioactive materials produced by the chain-reacting pile. The
most important hazard that arises from the release of nuclear
energy are radiations produced directly from fission and subsequently
emitted by the resultant fission products and plutonium. The
fission products can produce injury either as an external source
of radiation or, if they gain entry into the body, by acting
as an internal radioactive poison, quite analogous to radium
poisoning. This latter consideration is a major concern, since
the amounts required within the body to produce injurious effects
are minute compared to the quantities necessary to induce damage
by external beta and gamma irradiation.
MORE
STUDIES
A
single dose of 3.8 millicuries (140 MBq, 4.1 µg of caesium-137)
per kilogram was lethal in a study of dogs within three weeks
Redman,
H. C.; McClellan, R. O.; Jones, R. K.; Boecker, B. B.; Chiffelle,
T. L.; Pickrell, J. A.; Rypka, E. W. (1972). "Toxicity
of 137-CsCl in the Beagle. Early Biological Effects". Radiation
Research 50 (3): 629–648. doi:10.2307/3573559. JSTOR 3573559.
PMID 5030090.
DNA
damage to nuclear test vets prompts call for study of children
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=7B5D3A49-96BF-57FE-A849-E369E6196A27
Possible
associations between exposure to plutonium and mortality have
been examined in studies of workers at the U.S. plutonium production
and/or processing facilities (Hanford, Los Alamos, Rocky Flats),
as well as facilities in Russia (e.g., Mayak) and the United
Kingdom (e.g., Sellafield). The Mayak studies provide relatively
strong evidence for an association between cancer mortality
(bone, liver, lung) and exposure to plutonium…. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp143.pdf
Prof.
Yuri Bandazhevsky found that children contaminated with cesium-137
producing 50 disintegrations per second (becquerels) per kilogram
of body weight suffered irreversible heart damage . (Starrr,
S. 2012 Health Threat From Cesium 1-137. Japan Times Feb 16.
Available:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/rc20120216a1.html
AN
INFORMED OPINION:
Caldicott,
H. (2011, Apr 11). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation%20http://www.idealist.ws/contaminationna.php
Helen
Caldicott reports: “Internal radiation, on the other hand,
emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation,
ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such
as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being
released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate
at each step of various food chains (for example into algae,
crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil,
grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2]
After
they enter the body, these elements – called internal
emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid,
liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small
volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma
radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell
replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides
remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately
will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases
over time.
“The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most
profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading
to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation"
in assessing internal radiation exposures…”
2012-05-12 Karl
Grossman: "Response to the massive Fukushima radioactive discharges
has been a massive cover-up and outright denial",
majiasblog.blogspot.com
Karl
Grossman: "Response to the massive Fukushima radioactive
discharges has been a massive cover-up and outright denial"
Majia
here: Exactly right! Read Grossman's excellent essay:
Fukushima
Updated: What They Won’t Tell You by Karl Grossman
http://larryflynt.com/politicalarticles/fukushima-updated-what-they-wont-tell-you/
[Another
excerpt from the article (Grossman quoting Sherman)]
“The
Fukushima disaster will be worse than Chernobyl,” Dr.
Sherman emphasizes. “No question. This is because it is
continuing. They have not stopped the releases of radioactivity—God
knows if they ever will.” Moreover, the area in that part
of Japan is “far more populated” than the region
around Chernobyl, about 60 miles from Kiev, Ukraine’s
capital.
[end
excerpt]
Hat
tip: Tuni at Enenews
|
Forward
to 13
- 19 May 2012
Back to 29
April - 5 May 2012
Return To
Contents
|